Read on Twitter
A little thread about acronyms, which I know may encourage a bit of a debate. I’ll start by saying that I’m respectful of the methods of others, but might well disagree with them.
I don’t use formula to teach. https://twitter.com/litdriveuk/status/1266658474932547585
I don’t use formula to teach. https://twitter.com/litdriveuk/status/1266658474932547585
PAF, PEE, FAP, PAFOREST, PEZAL, SMILE- I’ve tried plenty earlier on in my career and I always came up against the same frustrations.
- we spent a lot of teaching time drilling what they stood for
- there were lots of examples of devices or structures used badly
- we spent a lot of teaching time drilling what they stood for
- there were lots of examples of devices or structures used badly
- they were the element that were remembered and not the authors, speakers, concepts, ideas or themes that I wanted students to consider
- student writing didn’t improve as a result of employing a formula
- student writing didn’t improve as a result of employing a formula
- when we returned to the same formula the following year, we had to dedicate time to teaching the formula- therefore defeating the purpose of the formula
- many great writers in the examples I used to exemplify writing did not use a formulaic approach and so subtleties of texts were overlooked by even the most capable student.
So, I choose not to use formulas, because I want students to remember great authors, speakers, figures.
So, I choose not to use formulas, because I want students to remember great authors, speakers, figures.
I want them to remember why they used language and draw these together as a collection of key concepts: injustice, segregation, gender, tragedy, difference, societal change, for example.
I want them to understand literature as a response to these concepts throughout history.
I want them to understand literature as a response to these concepts throughout history.
So what do I used instead? For even less confident writers?
I use retrieval to ensure we understand the substance of writing.
I drill on key themes.
I use the same language over and over and over again to articulate how writers convey their ideas.
I use retrieval to ensure we understand the substance of writing.
I drill on key themes.
I use the same language over and over and over again to articulate how writers convey their ideas.
I use questions that seek out the expertise of critical consumers. How does that line work? How does that word cause us to think in a particular way? Why that word there? Why not later? How are we being taken on a journey?
I drill vocab that enable students to articulate their ideas. Few words, universal application. Less, better:
For emotional response (this is a HUGE barrier for students to be able to explain beyond ‘sad’ and ‘angry’)
For analytical critique: conveys, reinforces, reflects
For emotional response (this is a HUGE barrier for students to be able to explain beyond ‘sad’ and ‘angry’)
For analytical critique: conveys, reinforces, reflects
It’s harder, and it’s not as easy as handing over an acronym as a sticking plaster to compensate for how hard the English language is, but it’s so, so much more satisfying when it’s successful- and it is successful. #fin
